[2019] KEELC 2701 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2701 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff, as administratix of the estate of Julius Njoroge Chomba, proved on a balance of probabilities that the deceased lawfully purchased and held a beneficial interest in Plot No. 155 (LR No. 8119) through membership and shareholding in the 1st defendant. The sale agreement,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2701 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mary Wangui Njoroge (Suing as the Administratix of the Estate of Julius Njoroge Chomba); Defendant: Kasarani Holdings Company; Defendant: Paul Mwangi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 1415 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Ownership Disputes, Trespass, Injunctive Relief, Fraudulent Transfer
Source Language
en
Land and Property Ownership Disputes Trespass Injunctive Relief Fraudulent Transfer

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Wangui Njoroge (Suing as the Administratix of the Estate of Julius Njoroge Chomba)

Plaintiff

Kasarani Holdings Company

Defendant

Paul Mwangi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a legal interest in the suit property.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant trespassed and constructed on the suit property.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff, as administratix of the estate of Julius Njoroge Chomba, proved on a balance of probabilities that the deceased lawfully purchased and held a beneficial interest in Plot No. 155 (LR No. 8119) through membership and shareholding in the 1st defendant. The sale agreement, certificates, and payment receipts evidenced this interest. The 1st defendant's subsequent allocation of the property to the 2nd defendant, who then trespassed and constructed on the land, was uncontroverted and amounted to fraudulent and illegal interference with the estate's proprietary rights. The defendants failed to appear or contest the claim. The court applied Section 26(1) of the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering, remaining upon, constructing, trespassing upon, or interfering with the plaintiff’s quiet possession of Plot No. 155 (LR No. 8119).
  • A permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from entering, remaining upon, transferring, occupying, leasing, charging, mortgaging, constructing, assigning, or interfering with the estate’s quiet possession of the property.